Description
Research buildings are highly complex structures. Hardly any other building type has to fulfil such a vast range of functional, technical, economical and legal requirements. Hence, these structures are expensive to build and operate. They represent a means of innovative production – and as such they are exposed to rapid modifications. New regulations and standards, in addition to innovative technologies and modes of operation, personnel modifications, and new research projects represent constantly changing challenges for a laboratory building.
All eventualities that may occur over the entire life span of a building can hardly be predicted for ordinary buildings – let alone for research buildings that stand at the forefront of defining our future. However, systematic analysis of the major developments in contemporary laboratory research reveals tendencies towards certain layouts. The most important one among these tendencies is the emergence of more flexible open plan arrangements as these layouts provide the greatest flexibility for unpredictable future developments.
The following tabulation particularly identifies the assumed effects on architectural features and technical service systems of contemporary research tendencies on the arrangement of spaces. Indirectly, it also shows that the design is not merely affected by new architectural and technical requirements, but also by necessary changes in the planning process itself. However, due to lack of space this publication will not discuss this issue in greater detail.
This chart highlights a number of interesting aspects. Different tendencies in research development apparently have identical architectural and technical effects. This is also true for tendencies in the mechanical and electrical engineering of research buildings. They seem to represent reliable developments of pivotal importance for future research building. Even if individual predicted developments should not materialise this does not disturb the overall picture.
Changed density of lab work
Automation, miniaturisation, and rationalisation lead to a more efficient use of laboratory spaces and consequently a higher density. This may or may not entail a decrease in the available working area per employee. Highly automated processes require less manpower, whereas in the event of more manual work the opposite is the case. An increased number of employees per lab unit evokes a greater sense of safety, social control, and communication. The reverse case will happen if numbers decrease.
These two tendencies can occur simultaneously within the same research discipline. Universal automation of research processes is not to be expected. At the same time, more efficient use of laboratory space has become a general priority. These developments call for larger and flexible spatial arrangements, which suit both automated processes (large space requirements, low manpower) and manual processes that concentrate a large number of employees.
Larger spatial units
Larger spatial units can adapt more easily to unpredictable developments than smaller cellular arrangements. For legal and security reasons more than one employee should be present in the laboratory at any time. This requirement can actually only be met with larger units. They also boost social interaction and the exchange of ideas. Also the often-feared anonymity of open plan workspaces is not necessarily an issue. Quite the reverse is true: a skilful and differentiated interior layout provides bright and lofty spaces that support teamwork, yet manages to preserve privacy. Small spaces will only continue to prevail in a few cases. This involves areas where toxic substances are handled or cross contamination poses a potential risk.
Proximity of office and laboratory spaces
Flat office hierarchies support team spirit and creativity. As office and laboratory work are merging, new communicative structures arise. Another trend pointing in the same direction is the convergence of manual and intellectual work through the use of computers, which calls for a close proximity of lab bench and office desk.
Therefore, the integration of desks for analysis and offices into laboratory wings has become more common. This way, office spaces are in close contact with the laboratory processes, yet benefit from natural ventilation. Offices allocated to lab spaces can be smaller and also reduce circulation areas. Consequently, they improve the ratio of net floor area to circulation area.
Small building depths
To the present day, many laboratory buildings are very deep. Triple-loaded systems with a central dark zone and a building depth of 20 m to 25 m frequently occur. These buildings may serve their purpose well – however, often they lack flexibility. Load-bearing central cores limit free circulation; several rows of columns and decentralised service shaft systems lead to further restrictions. The great depth of the buildings hampers penetration of daylight and internal communication.
In connection with open plan structures, smaller building depths can overcome these disadvantages. The result is lofty premises which also allows for another option: building depths between 13.50 m and 17.00 m allow the conversion into offices, e.g. for computer modelling or entirely different uses at a later stage.
Spatial structures supporting communication
Good communication in a laboratory has to be encouraged by appropriate architectural scenarios that create opportunities for social interaction. In this context, additional areas are not required, but skilfully arranged working environments that boost identity, team spirit, and eventually success.
Working groups, which are usually composed of several teams, need areas both for informal and formal communication. Generously dimensioned, attractive circulation routes and stairs provide informal meeting points, meeting rooms with multi-media equipment serve formal communication; ”coffee points” provide opportunities for both kinds of interaction. A holistic building organism should additionally provide a cafeteria or casino as well as conference spaces where exchange between working groups can take place.
Sustainability
So far the topic of sustainability has not been a priority in research buildings. Over the next years, increasingly sparse resources and legal requirements, however, are bound to put this issue in the centre of interest when planning and constructing buildings. Apart from being an ethical priority, sustainability is increasingly becoming an ecological, economical, and cultural factor that amplifies the durability of a building. The different aspects and resulting requirements form a complex system.
Sustainability in this sense can be illustrated here only by few examples: The above mentioned economical use of space helps to save building costs, building material, running costs and – if employed correctly – potentially improves working and corporate culture. High flexibility enhances the utility value of a building and increases its life span. This is important particularly in view of the fact that most changes or developments cannot be predicted precisely. Pleasant interior and working environments call for carefully selected materials, reduce the number of employees on sick leave and decrease maintenance costs. The use of recyclable materials helps to resolve disposal issues when buildings are refurbished and anticipates sustainable recycling policies. Energy efficient building and appropriate technical installations reduce investment and running costs; ideally, users should be able to control the room climate individually.
Architectural quality
The attributes of research buildings mentioned can help to secure high-class functional and spatial qualities of great innovative potential. However, users and passers-by will primarily relate to the architectural qualities of a project. A careful and holistic design approach down to the last detail gives architects the opportunity to create functional and sustainable buildings, which offer spatial qualities that support identification and a lasting sense of place.
High-quality innovative architecture can inspire its users; this is even more true and desirable in the realm of research. It creates a sense of individual and corporate identity. Last not least, a successful building is more likely to establish close links between employees and employers and the architectural environment. In the long run, such ”soft” factors can turn into concrete ”hard” advantages in the global competition for the best talents.
Originally published in: Hardo Braun, Dieter Grömling, Research and Technology Buildings: A Design Manual, Birkhäuser, 2005.